Ladakh standoff: Plan to start construction of Ayodhya Ram Temple suspended

The decision comes days after a violent face-off between Indian and Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley in Ladakh left 20 Indian Army personnel dead

Amid the Indo-China border standoff, the Ram Mandir trust has put on hold its plan to begin the construction of the temple in Ayodhya. The decision comes days after a violent face-off between Indian and Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley in Ladakh left 20 Indian Army personnel dead. Expressing concern over the killing of Indian soldiers, the trust which has been charged with the construction of the temple after the historic Supreme Court verdict last year, said a new date will be decided soon.

ALSO READ: Ram temple in Ayodhya: Trust’s meeting postponed due to Covid-19 lockdown

“The decision to begin construction (of temple) will be taken according to the situation in the country and will be announced officially,” Anil Mishra, member of the trust told PTI. In an official communique, the trust said that the situation at the India-China border is serious and defending the country is most important. The trust also paid tributes to the soldiers. Meanwhile, different Hindu organisations staged protests against China in Ayodhya. While Hindu Mahasabha activists burned the Chinese flag, activists of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) burned the effigy of Chinese President Xi Jinping and smashed Chinese-made products.

Ayodhya case: AIMPLB says it will file a review petition against SC verdict

AIMPLB counsel Zafaryab Jilani said the members had collectively resolved to do so, since the order did not do justice to the Muslim parties

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said it had decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya title suit. Addressing journalists after its working committee meeting here, AIMPLB counsel Zafaryab Jilani said the members had collectively resolved to do so, since the order did not do justice to the Muslim parties.

He said 35-40 of the Board’s 51 members were present when the resolution for a review was approved. He declined to comment on any dissenting opinion. Jilani cited Islamic jurisprudence as prohibiting any acceptance of other land in lieu of the disputed site. Which, he asserted, legitimately belonged to the mosque demolished on December 6, 1992. The Board has said under Shariah or Islamic law, Muslims may not accept any compensation for the mosque, whether land or other forms.

Jilani referred to the Sabarimala case from Kerala, wherein the SC had recently referred its earlier verdict in the case — pertaining to entry of women within a specified age group inside the shrine — to a larger seven-judge bench, Jilani said the Ayodhya case similarly merited a review, to dispense justice for Muslims. Also, that no single party could claim to be the main plaintiff, as there were a total of nine parties to the title suit case.

Some of those plaintiffs, apart from some prominent Muslim figures, have recently advised against filing of a review petition, to foster communal harmony. Instead, they have advised, focus on other pressing issues facing the community, including education and health. “The Board does not indulge in any kind of politics and we are only trying to fight for the fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution,” Jilani said.

Ayodhya verdict: Govt may not bring a Bill to set up Ram temple trust

The seers submitted a new model of the temple, different from the model kept at Ayodhya’s Karsevakpuram

The Narendra Modi government on Thursday indicated it may not need to bring a legislation to set up a trust to oversee construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, even as seers continued to demand that the existing Ramjanbhoomi Nyas should be entrusted with the task of construction of the proposed temple.

According to a top government official, the Supreme Court’s order last Saturday stated that Section 6 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at the Ayodhya Act 1993 empowers the central government to set up a trust or an authority to whom the land would be handed over. The official, who did not wish to be named, said there is no need for a separate legislation to create the trust, and that an order from the apex court is as good as law and is binding on the legislature as well.

Meanwhile, seers associated with the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas held a press conference in the national capital, and said they have submitted a memorandum to the government that the Nyas should be given the task of constructing the temple. There is friction between the Vishva Hindu Parishad, which has suggested that a new trust should be set up, and seers associated with the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas. Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, the head of the Nyas, has already demanded that the ‘Nyas’ is the only trust legally eligible for overseeing the construction work….

Ayodhya case to enter crucial final leg as SC resumes hearings on Oct 14

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi revised the deadline for wrapping up the proceedings and has fixed it on October 17

The protracted hearing in the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute at Ayodhya will enter into the crucial final leg on Monday when the Supreme Court resumes proceedings on the 38th day after the week-long Dussehra break.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, which started the day-to-day proceedings on August 6 after mediation proceedings failed to find an amicable solution to the vexatious dispute, has revised the deadline for wrapping up the proceedings and has fixed it on October 17.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Initially, as many as five lawsuits were filed in the lower court. The first one was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, a devotee of ‘Ram Lalla’, in 1950 to seek enforcement of the right to worship of Hindus at the disputed site. In the same year, the Paramahansa Ramachandra Das had also filed the lawsuit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols under the central dome of the now-demolished disputed structure….

Read More: Ayodhya Case

SC set to begin day-to-day hearing in Ayodhya land dispute case from today

The court, which had perused a report about the progress of mediation process till July 18, had said that its contents will remain confidential as per its earlier order

Current Affairs: The Supreme Court is set to commence day-to-day hearing from Tuesday in the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya after the efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation have failed. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will conduct the hearing.

The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer had on August 2 taken note of the report of the three-member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, that the mediation proceedings which went on for about four months have not resulted in any final settlement.

“The hearing which will be on day-to-day basis until the arguments are concluded will start with the appeals arising out of the two suits. The learned counsel(s)…in the appeals arising out of the aforesaid suits may, for the convenience of the court, indicate the pleadings and the evidence on which they propose to rely, so that the officials of the Registry can keep the said documents ready for perusal of the court,” the bench had said in its order. The top court had on July 18, asked the mediation panel to inform the court about the outcome of their proceedings as on July 31.

The mediation panel, also comprising spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu, had said in its report submitted on Thursday that the Hindu and the Muslim parties have not been able to find a solution to the vexatious dispute…

Mediation in Ayodhya title dispute: Taking the most suitable course ahead

The parties concerned must approach the mediation with open hearts and find a solution that leads to lasting peace

Current Affairs: The appropriation of history is a continual process in any society. However, in a multi-religious society like India, appropriations drawing exclusively on communal identities engender endless conflicts. The appropriation of history with regard to the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute has been at the core of a violent political movement — one which has claimed the lives of many Indian citizens.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of India ordered the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute to go for in-camera mediation. The court also appointed a panel of mediators headed by a former Justice of the Supreme Court. The court’s decision to look for a mediated solution, as opposed to a contested one does not come as surprise. In order to understand the court’s decision, it is imperative to first understand the history of the conflict.

The most contested piece of real estate in India

Deep within the lanes of Ayodhya is a 0.313-acre piece of land — arguably the most contested real estate in India. Hindus consider it the birthplace of Lord Rama, the Ram Janmabhoomi. It is believed that nearly 500 years ago, in 1528, Babur’s general Mir Baqi destroyed a Ram temple to erect at the spot a mosque, called the Babri Masjid.

Shortly after partition and the Independence of India, in December 1949, idols of Ram and Sita appeared at the ‘Janmasthan’. The Hindus claim that this was a miracle, and proof of their claim that the place was the birthplace of Lord Rama. Contrary to this theory, the FIR recorded at Ayodhya police station on December 23 states that three individuals (Abdy Ram Das, Ram Shukla Das and Sudarshan Das), along with some 50-60 people, had trespassed the mosque in order to install the idol.

Read full story on Ayodhya Case

SC refers Ayodhya land dispute case for mediation, gives 8 weeks to panel

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment

Current Affairs: The Supreme Court on Friday referred the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge F M I Kallifulla and gave it eight weeks to complete the process.

The other members of the panel will be spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, said a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The bench directed that the mediation will be held at Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh and the process should start within a week from Friday.

The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, said the panel should file a progress report of the proceedings within four weeks and complete the process within eight weeks The apex court said “utmost confidentiality” should be maintained to ensure success of the mediation process and no media, neither print nor electronic,should report the proceedings. The panel of mediators can co-opt more members in the team, it said. In case of any difficulty, the chairman will inform the apex court registry about it, it added…|Raed More

SC on Ayodhya dispute updates: Mediation to be held in Faizabad

The Supreme Court ordered mediation in the Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case to complete in 8 weeks. Catch LIVE updates on the SC order

Current Affairs: The Supreme Court on Friday ordered mediation in the Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case to settle it amicably. The SC Bench, comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer appointed three members panel headed by retired SC Judge FM I Kalifulla. The court has barred media from reporting mediation proceedings, which are to be held confidentially.

The Hindu bodies that are part of the case, except Nirmohi Akhara, have opposed the apex court suggestion to refer the issue for mediation, while Muslim bodies have supported it. The SC Bench had concluded the hearing earlier by asking stakeholders to give the names of possible mediators.

Hindu bodies like Nirmohi Akhara suggested the names of Justices (retd) Kurian Joseph, A K Patnaik and G S Singhvi as mediators, while the Hindu Mahasabha faction of Swami Chakrapani proposed the names of former CJIs J S Khehar and Dipak Misra, besides Justice (retd) A K Patnaik, to the Bench. The apex court had in its hearing on Wednesday observed that primarily the issue was not about 1,500 square feet of land, but about religious sentiments.

Panel mediators can co-opt more members in the : SC

The Supreme Court Bench directed that panel of mediators can co-opt more members in the team and in case of any difficulty the chairman will inform the apex court registry about it. “If the Ram Mandir issue is not solved, we will have a Syria in India,” Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said during the interview. Read on…

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar suggested ‘out-of-court settlement’ in 2018

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar appealed to the AIMPLB to consider an out-of-court settlement to the Ram Janmabhoomi row, saying he feared a “large-scale” communal flare up if the case was settled by a court or through legislation. In an open letter to the AIMPLB members, he said going through the court was a loss for both Hindus and Muslims and an out-of-court settlement would be a “win-win situation” for both the communities…

SC to hear Ayodhya title dispute case today: Everything you need to know

How did the Ayodhya land dispute case get to where it is?

Latest News: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Ayodhya title suit regarding the Babri masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi land dispute would be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench on January 10 (Thursday).

The bench will be led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, with the other four judges being Justices S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, U.U. Lalit and D Y Chandrachud. The Supreme Court began hearing the case in December 2017, when the Allahabad high court decision to split the land three ways was appealed.

In the last week of September 2018, the Supreme Court refused to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench a 24-year-old case – the Ismail Faruqui judgment – that said offering prayers in a mosque is not an “essential feature” of Islam. Justice Ashok Bhushan authored the majority judgment, for himself and then Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Justice S.A. Nazeer was the dissenting judge….

Click Here — Business Standard or BS

What the Ismail Faruqui judgment of 1994 was about

The petitioner, Ismail Faruqui, challenged the validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area At Ayodhya Act, 1993, under which 67.703 acres were acquired in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid complex in Ayodhya.

The Supreme Court held that “any step taken to arrest escalation of communal tension” can “by no stretch of argumentation, be termed non-secular”.

Keep Reading: Ayodhya land dispute 

Ordinance for Ram temple: A key that won’t open the locks in Ayodhya

Any ordinance that will block one side from access to adjudication, while perpetuating the status quo as far as demolition is concerned is likely to be held unconstitutional

BS : On January 21, 2002 monks, priests and assorted sadhus of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) began a long march – the Sant Chetavni Yatra – from Ayodhya. Having journeyed through Uttar Pradesh, they planned to reach Delhi on January 27. Their demand was that the government “remove all obstacles” to the building of a Ram temple at the site of the former Babri Masjid by March 12, 2002.

Questions were raised in Parliament regarding the steps being taken to keep a check on the VHP’s designs. On March 7, 2002, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, I.D. Swami told Parliament “Under Section 7(2) of the Acquisition of Certain area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 and in compliance with the Supreme Court Judgement dated 24.10.1994 in the case of Dr. Ismail Faruqui & others vs. Union of India and others, relating to Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, the Central Government as a statutory receiver is duty bound to maintain status quo as on 7.1.93 in the disputed area. The security arrangements at Ayodhya have been further strengthened and necessary steps taken to maintain law and order.”

That was in 2002. Cut to December, 2018, a similar situation looms. The VHP and its sister organizations have threatened ‘to take law into their own hands’ if the process for construction of the Ram Mandir is not expedited. Only this time, the calls of “Mandir wahinbanaenge”, from those outside government have been met with those of “Ordinance layenge” from those within.

Click Here : Business Standard